/ 

20 CENTS. 



TMB RURAL LIBRARY. 

Vol. I., No. 3. NEW YORK. J.nn. 1, 1892. 



[Entered at New York Post-Office as Second-Class Matter. 



Issued Monthly. S3 a Year. Single Copy, 20 Crs. 



S 633 
.C7 
Copy 1 



an d Clover 



SUCCESSFUL FARM OPERATIONS WHERE HIGH-GRADE COMPLETE 

MANURES AND SOD SUPPLY A CHEAPER MANURE THAN 

THAT OBTAINED FROM KEEPING LIVE STOCK. 



H. W. COLLIMGWOOD, 



THE RURAL PUBLISHING CO., TIMES BUILDING, HEW YORK. 



ESTABLISHED 18SO: 

The Rural New-Yorker. 

"THE RURAL NEW-YORKER has more to say about fertilizers than any 
other newspaper." — Joseph Harris. 

" THE RURAL NEW-YORKER has done more for farmers than all of the 
Agricultural Colleges." — JV. Y. Tribune. " More than all the Experi- 
ment Stations," adds the N. Y. Times. 

"BEST FARM PAPER in existence," says the N. Y. World. "The most 

reliable of its class," add T. T. Harrison and thousands of others. 

SEND FOR FREE SPECIMEN COPY. 



ESTABLISHED 1846: 

American Gardening. 

For the most practical information about the culture of Fruits, Vege- 
tables. Flowers and about Ornamental Gardening send 10 cts for 
a large and handsome number of American Gardening. 64 pages 
nearly twice the size of this, profusely illustrated, containing more 
of practical value than any dollar book on the subject. 



Here are some Fresh and Practical 

BOOKS OF GREAT VALUE 

at low cost. 

THE BUSINESS HEN. Breeding and Feeding Poultry for Profit. By a 
dozen practical poultrymen. Cloth, 75 cts. ; paper, 40 cts. 

IMPROVING THE FARM. Cloth, $1. 

HORTICULTURISTS' RULE-BOOK. Thousands of practical directions for 
daily use. Cloth, $1 ; paper, 50 cts. 

ANNALS OF HORTICULTURE. A record of progress. Cloth, $1 ; paper, 
60 cts. 

LANDSCAPE GARDENING. 32 plates and plans with descriptions. 50 cts. 

FEEDING ANIMALS. $2. 

CELERY CULTURE A SUCCESS. $1. 

THE NURSERY BOOK. A complete manual of the propagation of plants. 
Cloth, $1 ; paper, 50 cts. 

THE NEW POTATO CULTURE. An account of The Rural New-Yorker's 
15 years' experiments in growing potatoes on fertilizers, and raising 
1,000 bushels per acre. Cloth, 75 cts. ; paper, 40 cts. 

For any Farm Books Wanted Always Address 



THE RURAL PUBLISHING COmPflNY, 
Times Building, Hew York. 



Chemicals and Clover 



Farming with Concentrated Dung 



A RECORD OF 



Successful Farm Operations in New Jersey, where High-Grade 
Complete Manures and Sod supply a Cheaper Mam 
than that obtained from keeping Live Stock 



uire 



HERBERT IV. COLUNGIVOOD 

Managing Editor of The Rural New-Yorker. 



New York 

The Rural Publishing Company 

Times Building 



V 



Other Numbers of 
THE RURAL LIBRARY SERIES, 

Issued (Monthly. $? a Year. 

THE TUBEROUS BEGONIA. Illustrated. 20 cts. 

RATS, How to Rid Buildings of. 20 cts. 

HOW TO PLANT A PLACE. 60 illustrations. A 

concise guide for popular us e. 20 cts. 
THE BUSINESS HEN. Breeding and Feeding 

Poultry for Profit. By H. W. Collingwood. 

Double ntimber. 40 cts. 
CROSS BREEDING AND HYBRIDIZING. The 

Philosophy of theCrossing of Plants, Considered 

with Reference to their Cultivation. 40 cts. 

Other Announcements to Follow. 



copyrighted, 1892, by 

The Rural Publishing Company. 



electrotyped and printed br 

The Rural Publishing company* 









INTRODUCTION. 



SINCE the publication of a few crude articles on " Chemi- 
cals and Clover" in The Rural New-Yorker, many 
requests have come to me for further information 
respecting the details of this unique system of farm- 
ing. I have therefore elaborated and expanded those arti- 
cles, in the 'hope of making the matter clearer. One can 
be easily misunderstood on such a subject. Chemical manures 
have a certain place in American agriculture. Like anything 
else of real value, their use will bring profit — their abuse will 
bring loss. Chemicals and sod supply every element that is 
supplied in stable manure. That fact cannot be disputed by 
any thoughtful man. On some farms the chemicals are 
cheaper than the manure. Wh.-.l I have attempted in this 
little book is to give an idea o: what these farms are and 
how they may be found. The Rural New- Yorker has fre- 
quently been accused of "talking fertilizers too much." 
We have not "talked about" them half enough. The farmers 
of this country pay out each year over $50,000,000 for com- 
mercial fertilizers. A good deal of this money is lost and wasted 
because poor and unsuitable goods are bought, and because 
they are wrongly used. One reason for these mistakes is that 
fertilizers are not "talked about" as they should be. I know 
that on a good many Eastern farms grass-sod and chemicals 
make a better and cheaper "dressing" than stable-manure. 
On many other farms smaller quantities of fertilizers added to 
the present stable-manure will pay a double profit because 
they might be used to supply what the soil needs and what 
the manure lacks. I also know that some farmers are making 



4 Introduction. 

stable-manure at a loss — that is, the hay and grain fed to 
stock and the labor spent in feeding tbem, cost more, after the 
resulting meat, milk or wool is sold, than the same amount 
of "fertility" would cost if bought in the form of fertilizers. 
There are thousands of farmers who spend all the way from 
$500 to $1,200 in cash for fertilizers each year. They are, 
almost without exception, highly successful— making money 
at farming while their farms are of good heart and constantly 
growing heartier. How did they learn to farm in this way ? 
By "talking fertilizers " and thinking fertilizers. They made- 
mistakes and failures and might have stopped several times 
and said, "Fertilizers don't pay." They stuck to the use of 
them long enough to learn that the way to use fertilizers with 
profit is to have them in a rotation in which grass-sod plays 
a prominent part. I know farmers who talk politics by the 
hour without adding the weight of a straw to the safety of 
the country, or changing in any way the political situation. 
If they would spend that time talking the truth out of fertilizers 
they would do something. The meat of this fertilizer question 
has a tough shell around it. The shell of that nut can be 
cracked only by the hammer of thought, but the meat inside 
is well worth the cracking. While there may not be much 
that is new about this farming with Chemicals and Clover, 
there is, however, much that is true, and if there ever was a 
time when American farmer^ needed to work out the truth of 
this question of farm fertility, it is now/ 



RURAL LIBRARY SERIES. 



Chemicals and Clover. 



I HAVE a plain story to tell and shall try and waste no words in telling it. 
I ask the reader in advance to remember ttiat the statements that 
follow are all founded on facts which can be readily verified. I make 
this assertion thus early because I know how hard it is for many 
farmers to realize that such a thing as "artificial dung," or I may say 
concentrated manure, is possible, or that the crops of an ordinary farm rotation 
can be successfully grown without feeding all or most of the grain and hay to 
live stock. Countless reasons have been given for the failure of American 
agriculture to pay a reasonable profit for the farmer's toil and care. One 
great reason for the decline of farming in the older parts of the country is 
rarely mentioned by the agricultural surgeons. It is the simplest and most 
evident to the scientific man, and the most obscure to the "practical" man who 
has lived long enough to wear a comfortable rut for himself in everyday 
affairs. This reason is a well-established belief, handed down from father 
to son, that there is no real substitute for stable-manure, and that land 
which can not support live stock of some sort at a profit must be "abandoned" 
or farmed at a loss. It is evident that the recent rapid development of the 
West, and the wonderful increase in transportation facilities, have tended 
to reduce the cost of meats and live stock products, until the Eastern 
farmer can not compete on even terms with his Western competitor. He 
must secure a special price by selling a special product in a special market, 
or conduct a losing business because he must pay cash for plant food while 
his competitor has ioo years the start of him in a soil that is a century 
younger in exhaustive cultivation. No man but an expert — one specially 
gifted by nature for handling live stock — can develop a special market. Are 
the others to quit farming when the pricesof their products fall so low that 
stable-manure costs more than it is worth? 

Several years ago a Western farmer who left New England because 
Western farm-products ' ' swamped him out " said to me : 



6 The Rural Library. 

"Within 40 years the farming-lands of New England, New Jersey and 
Eastern New York will be reduced to the condition of a desert ! The land 
west of the Alleghanies can produce more food than the people of the entire 
country can consume, and railroad transportation is being so perfected that 
the Western farmer can undersell the world in any market. Whenever a 
section of country begins to use large quantities of chemical fertilizers its 
agriculture is doomed — just as the man who begins the continued use of 
stimulents must bid farewell to health. The only natural way to maintain 
the fertility of the soil is through live stock husbandry. A change in that 
system is unnatural and means death ! The future of Eastern agriculture 
is easy to predict. The majority of the manufacturing enterprises must, 
sooner or later, go to the places where their raw materials are produced. 
The great seaports will, of course, remain. The country for a few miles 
back around them will support thousands of foreign gardeners and fruit- 
men but, back of this narrow strip, lightning trains from the West will run 
through deserted farming regions given up to wilderness and desolation — 
with grass-grown roads, ruined churches and school-houses, and deserted 
villages; with sheep or cattle-ranching — the lowest form of agriculture — as 
the only farming." 

This man believed what he said, and had some reason for his belief. I 
was born in New England. I go back now and find the little farm on which 
we made a happy if scanty living, grown up to bushes and briars — deserted 
because " manure costs too much." There are dozens of farms like it in the 
township. A few farmers prosper still at raising vegetables and fruits, 
selling milk or keeping poultry, but the majority of the old homesteads that 
are not " nailed up " are rented to workers in the shoe-factory or filled with 
sad and bitter old people rusting in melancholy loneliness through the years 
that ought to be the best of their lives. No soil cost more in toil and priva- 
tion than that of these New England farms. It is sad that all this labor 
should now yield nothing but disappointment. What is the cause? "Western 
competition!" What does that mean? Cheaper fertility! It means 100 
per cent, less in the cost of stable-manure for the Western farmer, and a 
consequent doubling of the cost of maintaining the fertility of the New 
England farm. 

That is one story ; now here is another told me by a farmer in New Jersey 
— a section just about as old as the one in New England already alluded to. 

" In 40 years from this time, the richest lands of the country will be at 
the East while the poor lands will be at the West. Every principle that is 
supplied to the soil in stable-manure can be supplied by a system of rotation 
in which chemical fertilizers form the basis of fertility. The crops will 
grow larger and larger, the soil richer and richer, and the labor less and less 



Chemicals and Clover. 7 

exacting. The Western farmer of the future will have to perform all the 
drudgery of dairying and stock-keeping. The Eastern farmer need do but 
little of this work, but may substitute for stable-manure the easily-applied 
chemicals. Stable-manure is nothing, after all, but the residue of the hay 
and grain eaten by the animal. The same elements that make the grain 
valuable are found in chemicals; and the hay is practically the same, whether 
it is eaten or turned directly into the soil with a plow." 

These statements induced me to visit Cranbury, N. J., where this system 
of farming with chemicals and clover has been carried on some 15 years — 
long enough to test all its possible weak points. I found a community of 
farmers growing rich at producing hay, potatoes, corn and wheat — keeping 
just as little live stock as possible. Yes, growing rich in direct competition 
with the West, and on this "unnatural " system of chemical manuring. I 
found happy and contented farmers, boys that want to stay on the farm, 
and a farm-life robbed of the disagreeable features that have driven many 
a bright boy and girl into the prison of a factory or store. A soil fattening 
while it yields fat crops — agriculture that " pays"! 

First let us consider the crops grown and the rotation followed; for the 
rotation is acknowledged to be one of the most important elements of the 
system. 

Four crops are grown — potatoes, wheat, grass two years, and corn. The 
potatoes are planted in drills with over 1,500 pounds of high-grade fertilizer 
to the acre, or 1,000 pounds broadcast before planting and 500 or more in 
the drills. The potato-ground is plowed and seeded to wheat in the fall 
with Timothy, with clover added in the spring. After two years of grass 
what stable-manure is made is hauled out in summer and spread on the sod — 
the aftermath being permitted to grow and decay on the ground. This is 
all plowed in the spring and the ground is planted to corn, to be followed 
the next spring by potatoes, and so on through the rotation. The theory of 
this system of fertilizing is that the heavy dressing of potato-fertilizer will 
not only produce a profitable crop of potatoes, but will leave enough fer- 
tility in the soil to maintain the wheat and grass. The stable-manure and 
clover sod are used for the corn, because corn is the great scavenger of the 
farm— better able to appropriate the coarser manures than any of the other 
crops. It has a longer life, a better digestion, and a stouter heart than any 
other crop in the rotation. As little stock as possible, outside of the work- 
teams, is kept, and no particular pains are taken to increase the amount of 
stable-manure. 

Trusting Their Money to Potatoes. 

Mr. D. C. Lewis is the pioneer (at Cranbury) of this unique system of 
farming, and his farm is about the best illustration of the possibilities of 



8 The Rural Library. 

chemical manuring. He has ioo acres, including woodland, pasture and 
house-lot. Last year's (1891) potato-field contained 17 acres. On this one 
field there were applied 107 bags or 21,400 pounds of high-grade fertilizer, 
costing a little over $450 in cash. In former years the fertilizer was 
all applied at planting, but this year a portion was reserved for the first 
cultivating. It was put on with the drill and immediately cultivated in. 
Mr. Lewis believes that this second dressing not only gives the potato-roots 
a better chance to grow and stretch out for their food, but that it gives a 
better distribution of the fertilizer for the wheat which is to follow. The 
potato is the best crop on which to use the fertilizer, for several reasons. It 
is a heavy feeder and needs its food in a soluble form, as the growth of the 
tubers is made in a comparatively short time. When well cultivated 
through the growing-season this crop leaves the soil in fine condition for 
wheat-seeding. The fertilizers give smoother and better-flavored potatoes 
than those grown with stable-manure, and no other crop would pay back the 
original cost of the fertilizers and leave a profit besides. 

This is due to the fact that the potatoes are largely water. Every 
combination of chemical and clever farming must have at least one water 
crop — something that can combine the high-priced chemicals with a large 
amount of cheap water, and thus make a salable product. 

For these reasons Mr. Lewis is not at all afraid to shovel the fertilizer on 
to the potato-ground. His land grows stronger and stronger with each 
round of the rotation, but he has not yet reached the limit of his fertilizing. 
He expects to work up to 2,000 pounds per acre and make a profit on the 
increase. He is convinced that most failures with fertilizers are due to the 
fact that not enough was used. He is willing to trust his soil with $50 
worth of soluble fertilizers per acre, confident that he will get every penny 
of it back with higher interest than he can obtain from any other invest- 
ment. 

There was hardly a weed to be found in this 17-acre field, so thoroughly 
and carefully had the crop been cultivated. Most of it was planted with 
the Aspinwall planter, a few rows only of choice seed being planted by 
hand. Last year for the first time, Mr. Lewis used Breed's weeder and the 
Buckeye riding-cultivator. He gives these tools full credit for the splendid 
condition in which his farm was found. The weeder was kept continually 
at work until the vines were so high that leaves were torn off in running the 
tool through the rows. The whole 17 acres was "weeded" in 1^ day, 
with a fast-walking mule. The Buckeye cultivator is kept at work in the 
field when the vines become too large for the weeder, lightly stirring the 
entire surface and slightly ridging up the rows till the ground is as mellow 
and fine as an ash-heap — all ready to absorb the moisture sent by the lightest 



Chemicals and Clover. 9 

shower. With this Buckeye cultivator a man can ride over the entire field 
in 2.Y2. days, doing more and better work than four men could with one- 
horse cultivators. Every tooth of the cultivator is under immediate control 
of the rider — no jerking, twisting or striking is possible. Mr. Lewis in- 
dorses the well-tested plan of making a mulch by lightly stirring the surface 
soil, which he is sure tends to conserve moisture. In farming with chemicals, 
good culture and the conservation of all possible moisture are of the utmost 
importance. Where the ground is fine and open, the soluble fertilizers will 
make use of the smallest quantities of water. The potato-beetles are fought 
with Paris green and water — a two-wheeled sprinkler drawn by one horse 
will run over the entire field in two days. 

Wheat and Grass at a Second Table. 

After the potatoes have eaten all of the fertilizers they need, the wheat 
and grass come to the table. There is food enough left to provide a full 
meal and they are not at all bashful about appropriating it. Sometimes a 
light dressing of fertilizers is put on the grass in the spring, or, when the 
season promises to be dry, a little nitrate of soda is put on the wheat to 
induce a rapid growth early in the season; but in the great majority of cases 
the fertilizers left in the ground by the potatoes provide ample food for one 
crop of wheat and two of grass. And such wheat and grass as these ferti- 
lizer fields showed ! The wheat promised an average of over 30 bushels per 
acre, and the grass will certainly cut i]/ z tons. And this without an ounce 
of stable-manure and with no other fertilizers than the residue left by 
potatoes, which crop had already paid three times the cost of the original 
outlay for the fertilizers ! When the fertilizers are used, such a thing as a 
failure to obtain a "catch" of clover-seed or grass is unknown. Mr. Lewis 
regards the wheat-crop as clear profit in his rotation. The straw used on 
the corn will pay for all the work of producing and marketing the crop, 
and the potatoes have already more" than paid for the fertilizer. When 
asked why he did not raise rye instead of wheat, and sell the straw at a good 
price, Mr. Lewis gave several reasons. If he raised any rye he would have 
to put all of his grain-land in rye, as his fields are such that otherwise the 
grains would be mixed. Rye is not so good a seeding-crop as wheat, and he 
would run the risk of getting a poorer stand of grass. Sod being his sub- 
stitute for stable-manure and the chief source of his humus, he cannot afford 
to weaken it. Again, rye is naturally a poor-soil crop. If sown after the 
potatoes with all this available fertilizer in the soil, it would lodge because 
of too rank a growth. 

One great mistake that many farmers make is in assuming that grass 
needs no manure, but that it can take care of itself — something like a goat 



io The Rural Library. 

or a Mexican burro. No more fatal mistake was ever made. Grass must 
have a supply of plant-food in some form, or it will perish. It may die a 
lingering death, and take more time over it than some other plants, but in 
the end it will fail to pay unless it is fed. It is the most appreciative crop 
on the farm, and grows larger, stronger and sweeter the more it is fed 
Weeds thrive on hunger, but plenty prospers the valuable plants. That is 
to say, as soils become poorer tbe weeds and useless plants occupy the soil 
more and more. Fertilize the soil, and the grasses take fresh courage and 
crowd out the weeds. Nature has made this a fixed law. The wise farmer 
takes advantage of it by coaxing grass rather than by abusing it. 

The Scavenger Crop of the Farm. 

What the pig or the goose is on many farms, the corn-crop is in this 
chemical farming — a waste-saver, a manufacturer of the crudest materials. 
Every other crop on the farm is nourished by manufactured products with 
a view of eliminating all wastes or useless bulk. All the wastes that do 
accumulate are dumped upon the corn crop to be utilized, made over and 
fitted for the potatoes. These farmers recall with wonder their own days 
of manure-farming, or read the reports of other farmers who spread tons 
of stable-manure directly on the potato-fields. The work of hauling all the 
water in that stable-manure through the mud and hurry of spring, and the 
thought of putting that mass of hot and fermenting material directly upon 
the crop that is more susceptible than any other to rots and "skin-diseases,' 1 
is to them incomprehensible. They can ride on a comfortable seat and put 
the fertilizer on io acres, while a big man with the stoutest team of horses 
in the country is hauling out stable-manure enough to give one acre a fair 
dressing. These farmers would not put stable-manure directly upon pota- 
toes. It must first be " strained through a crop of corn" before they want 
it for making tubers. After cutting the grass for the second year, all the 
stable-manure made on the farm is hauled out and spread on the sod. This 
work is done before potato-digging, when there is nothing else to be done. 
In the spring, the accumulations from hog-pen, stables, etc., are scattered 
over the sod with straw, stalks, etc., and the whole mass is plowed and well 
harrowed. Corn is planted in hills ; last year for the first time a little fertil- 
izer was used in the hill. The crop is seldom or never hoed — the weeder, 
harrow and cultivator, used in time, strangling all the weeds in infancy. The 
corn-crop brings in less cash than any other, and yet it is one of the most 
valuable in the rotation, because it draws its fertility from substances which, 
in this farm system, may be counted as wastes, and because it puts the 
ground, the stable-manure and grass-sod in the best possible condition for 
the money-crop of the rotation — potatoes. 



Chemicals and Clover. n 

It is because potatoes are the money-crop of the farm, that they are 
petted and pampered and fed on the choicest food. The corn-plant is the 
key-keeper of the rotation. Clover supplies the crude material and corn 
"manufactures it into suitable humus" for the potato-plant — yielding its 
grain as almost clear gain. On a rotation of this sort, where first-class 
potatoes are to be grown, the corn-crop is almost as important as the clover 
because of its ability as a weed-cleaner, and its skill as a manufacturer of 
potato-humus or suitable vegetable matter to go with the chemicals to make 
the best "artificial dung." 

The Stock— the Wastes— the Work. 

Mr. Lewis keeps on his ioo-acre farm two horses, two mules, four cows 
and two sows with their pigs. He says he has too much stock now and does 
not want any more ! The genuine fertilizer-farmer seems to look upon stock- 
keeping and dairying as the worst sort of drudgery, which he is willing to 
leave to the farmers of the West, or to those farmers who have a love for 
animals and a peculiar ability for handling them. He prides himself on 
the fact that he is in a location where stock-growing is not necessary to farm- 
ing; where strong sod with the addition of clean chemicals make a stronger 
and more enduring manure than can ever be made by "waiting on cattle " 
and passing high-priced grain and bulky hay through farm animals. The 
four cows are kept for butter and milk, a little of which is sold. They are 
winter-fed on stalks and corn-meal. The pigs (half Cheshire and half Duroc- 
Jersey) are sold in the fall. They eat up a portion of the corn and work 
great quantities of straw and stalks into manure. The mules have nothing 
to eat but ear-corn and stalks. The horses are fed hay and ear-corn or meal. 
No oats or other grain are ever fed ; when they go off on a journey, ear- 
corn is always taken for feeding as they have always eaten that food. Im- 
mense quantities of straw are used for bedding, and every effort is made to 
rot it down quickly for use on the corn. Mr. Lewis says : 

" I think it likely our system of handling these products is wasteful, and 
we may in time adopt some different plan if we can do so without interfer- 
ing with our rotation." 

It might pay him to chop all his corn into ensilage, but he does not like 
stock-keeping, though he believes that steer-feeding will pay better than in 
former years. He believes it would pay him to run all his surplus straw 
and stalks through a cutter merely to put them in the barnyard as they 
would decay more easily, absorb the liquid manure, and be more easily ap- 
plied to the land. Only one hired man is kept except in haying and harvest, 
when extra help is needed. Potato-digging formerly demanded increased 
help, but they now make use of diggers, and thus save the greater part of 



12 The Rural Library. 

hand-labor. The potato-ground is cultivated so frequently and so well that 
at the end of the season it is in just the right shape for a digger to do its 
best work — a point that all farmers do not appreciate. In this system there 
are barely four months of hard work. After potato-digging and wheat- 
seeding there is little or nothing to be done until spring work opens. I have 
never seen a system where less /land-work was needed. With riding-plows, 
cultivators, mowers, loaders, binders and diggers, a man is in danger of for- 
getting how to ' ' chase a horse over a field, "or " bend his back over a hoe." 
"A good farmer can always find something to do," and these fertilizer- 
farmers are free to hunt for the labor that will bring them most profit and 
comfort. They are not crippled by cheap hand-labor — they give the horse 
a full chance in the work partnership. 

This fertilizer farming offers a better chance for cooperative or community 
farming than any other system I know of. The farmers do not need to live 
far off in lonely or isolated places in order to be near and care for their live 
stock ; their farms will not suffer if they leave them through the winter and 
live in villages, where society and friendly amusement may be had. A good 
deal of the "black side of farming" is caused by the lonesomeness of the 
long, dreary winters passed on some isolated farm, where, prisoned in by 
bad weather and worse roads, many bright and promising lives are starved 
by the dreary monotony of their surroundings into hopeless melancholy 
and bitterness. More people are tied to the dreary life by the keeping of 
unprofitable live stock, than from almost any other cause. Not only the fer- 
tilizers but the products of fertilizer farming can all be bought and sold in 
large quantities in wholesale rates without middlemen. Not only this, but as 
Mr. Lewis says, the habit of studying out the truth of this problem has 
led the farmers to investigate the merits of new machines and varieties that 
have largely contributed to their success. 

One great advantage of this system is, that all the farm manure is used on 
the corn instead of on wheat or other crops. The hot summer after June 
is particularly favorable for the action of the chemical processes of the 
soil, including nitrification (changing of inert nitrogen into active nitrates 
and ammonia) and in converting farm-manure and all coarse materials in 
the soil into available plant-food. Corn, during its long summer growth, 
can freely use these manurial supplies.- Not so with wheat, for its growth 
stops soon after the corn-crop has fairly started growing. When 1,500 
pounds of fertilizers are used on an acre of potatoes, with wheat and grass 
to follow, it means only annual applications of less than 500 pounds. It is 
concentration everywhere. The potatoes pay for it all. While the sales of 
hay from this farm are heavy, this item is, as we have said, almost clear 
gain, because the potatoes have paid for all the fertilizer needed for three or 



Chemicals and Clove?. 



13 



four years. Not only that, but they paid for it in the same year it was 
bought. This fact can not be too often repeated — it is the key-note of the 
success with fertilizers. If instead of using 1,500 pounds on the potatoes, 
these farmers should use 500 on potatoes, 500 on wheat and 500 on grass, 
their bills would be as high as now, the labor three times as great, and the 
crops of potatoes cut down nearly one-half, with but a small increase in 
grain and hay. It will thus be seen that the rotation is one particularly 
well suited to the use of chemicals. It is only fair for me to say that this 
system of complete manuring with rotation was devised and developed by 
Mr. Charles V. Mapes.* 

The Record of a Chemical Farm. 

Mr. Lewis's farm is old enough to be exhausted, if it is true that soil- 
exhaustion must follow long-continued cultivation. But his "unnatural'' 
chemical treatment seems to give an unnatural result, for the farm persists 
in growing strong and more productive with each round of the rotation. It 
has been cultivated more or less extensively for over 100 years. During 
the war of the Revolution this part of New Jersey was one big battlefield. 
It is a part of history how Washington called upon the farmers of this 
community to supply his starving troops with food. This farm was then 
about as much a part of the "virgin soil" of the country as the newer 
settled parts of Iowa or Missouri are to-day. It was after the Revolution 
that this farm "ran down," and it ran about as far as it could. 

Mr. Lewis has owned it 21 years. His immediate predecessor owned it 
for about the same length of time. Before that it was held for 10 years by 
the owner of a button-factory, who used the farm for spreading the wastes 
of his factory — horn, bone, etc. For 20 years before Mr. Lewis bought it 
the farm ran down because more fertility was taken from it in the form of 
crops than was put back in the form of manure. While the owner paid 
for the farm and made money, he did so at the expense of the soil, and 
left it poorer and less able to produce crops than when he took it. The 
practice at that time was to use marl and lime, with light applications 
of Peruvian guano on wheat. In those days 20 bushels of wheat per acre 
was considered a great yield. All the yard-manure that was made was 
applied to the wheat-crop, and the cost of producing a bushel of wheat or 
a ton of hay was greater. than at present, because the yield was less and the 
work harder. In spite of the "war prices" of these days, yearly sales 
from the farm averaged only from $1,200 to $1,500, and crops were gradually 
decreasing in size. 

*Mr. Lewis and his neighbors use the Mapes Complete Fertilizer. 



14 The Rural Library. 

This condition of affairs was characteristic of many other farms in that 
part of New Jersey ; in fact, as prices for farm products dropped, and the 
great rush of immigration to the West opened, Eastern farmers could see 
little hope for the future. Mr. Lewis became convinced that, as staple 
farm products were lessened in price because of our immense increase in 
production, he must lessen the cost of producing a bushel of wheat, potatoes 
and corn by increasing the yield per acre without adding to the bill for 
labor ; which on too many farms is the chief item of expense. He was not 
a "fancy" farmer, but looked to his farm for an income, and was thus 
obliged to be sure of what he was doing before investing largely in fertil- 
izers. He learned something of the value of fertilizers by using them in a 
small way ; but the hardest, and yet the most profitable lesson of all, was 
the knowledge that it paid to concentrate all the fertilizer needed for the 
crops of four years on the potatoes, and let them have all they needed of 
it. No plant or annual ever made a big record for work that was not known 
as a hearty eater, and the hearty feeders are always the men who win prizes 
for great crops, speed or growth. To lessen the cost of his farm products, 
Mr. Lewis became a heavy feeder, and the farm now shows its gratitude by 
yielding heavy crops. 

In the year ending April i, 1889, the following sales were made from this 

100-acre farm : 

Cattle and pork, $362 16 

Corn, 130 00 

Potatoes, 1,304 10 

Hay, 925 00 

Wheat 33i 22 

Miscellaneous , 64 19 

$3,n6 73 
In 1890, the worst season for potatoes and wheat known since the fertilizer 
rotation was begun, the sales footed up to $2,435.20. The present season's 
sales are not completed, but will run over $3, 000, as there were 4,000 bushels 
of potatoes alone. The average income from the farm is now $1,500 more 
than it was 20 years ago, in spite of the fact that the old "war prices" for 
farm-products were from 50 to 75 per cent, higher than are those of to-day. 
Not only that, but the farm is more productive to-day than it ever was before 
in all its known history. Mr. Lewis now grows more hay on his farm than 
was grown in the whole township 50 years ago! Nor is this all, for these 
farms have gained a reputation that is of great business value. Potatoes 
"grown without stable-manure" find ready sale and command a little extra 
price, especially in seasons when the crop is heavy. The hay from these 
fertilizer farms is all sold to special customers. And it is possible to 
develop special markets for all products grown with fertilizers — just as 
dairymen who call attention to the fact that they feed their cows nothing 



Chemicals and Clover. 15 

but the purest and sweetest hay and grain, are able to command extra 
prices for their milk or butter. Over 250 years ago, Jethro Tull wrote in 
his quaint way : 

This Dung rs a Htter Food for venomous Creatures 
(a) than for edible Plants •, and 'tis (no doubt) upon 
account of this, that dung'd Gardens are fb much 
frequented by Toads, which are feldom or never 
feen in the open undung'd Fields, 

What can we fay then to the Salubrity of thofe 
Roots themfelves, bred up and fatten'd among. thefe 
Toads and Corruption ? The Leaves indeed are only 
difcharging fome of the Filth, when we eat them ; 
but the Roots have that unfavoury infected Food in 
their very Mouths, when we take them for our Nou* 
rifhment 

But tho' Dung be, upon thefe and other accounts, 
injurious to the Gat den, yet a confiderable Quantity 
of it is'fo necefTary to molt Corn-fields, that without 
it little Good can be done by the old Hufbandry. 

Dung is nor injurious to the Fields (b), being there 
in lefs Proportion : And the Produce of Corn is the 
Grain. When the Leaves have done their utmoft to 
purify the Sap, the moil refin'd Part is fecern'd to be 
yet further elaborated by peculiar Organs •, then, by 
the Veflels of the BlofToms, tis become double-refin'd, 
for the Nourifhment of the Grain j which is therefore 
more pure from Dung, and more wholrbme, than 
any other Part of the Plant that bears it. 

Scientists and practical farmers to-day do not believe this at all, but 
it must be admitted that thousands of city people — those who are able and 
willing to pay high prices for special farm products— do believe it and are 
ready to back up their belief in the most practical manner. Some little 
experience in selling potatoes grown with fertilizers has convinced me that 
it is possible to command a special price and trade, particularly with 
potatoes, by advertising the fact that ' ' no stable manures are used. " After 
all, Tull's idea of the value of dung for grain is not far out. 

Two Cents a Pound for Manure 

seems like a tremendous price to the man who uses stable-manure and 
never buys fertilizer. "Two cents a pound " is a bigger price than is ob- 



1 6 The Rural Library. 

tained for any product sold off this farm! Think of using 25,800 pounds 
in one year! That is what Mr. Lewis used last season, and if he has any 
regret at all, it is that he did not use more. I say that two cents a pound 
seems like a tremendous price, but when you come to figure up the cost of 
manufacturing a ton of stable-manure, you will not feel so sure about it. 
The payment for the chemical fertilizer is like a direct tax — you pay it all 
at once, in a lump, and it seems big. The cost of making your stable-manure 
is more like an indirect tax; you pay more, but you do not realize it because 
theitems are all mixed up in labor, time and other things which ought to have 
a cash value, but which you can hardly estimate fairly. The direct tax may 
seem harder, but it costs less in the end, because you escape interest, dues, 
commissions and numberless other small items that represent the cost of 
making it seem easier. At Cornell University, it was found that a ton of fresh, 
sheltered horse-manure — far better than the average found on farms — was 
worth $2. 45, estimated just as the values of chemical fertilizers are estimated. 
In this ton there were just 25^ pounds of nitrogen, potash and phosphoric 
acid — the three substances that you have to pay money for in fertilizers. In 
your ton of stable-manure you had 100 pounds of ash, about 450 pounds of 
organic matter, and 1,450 pounds of water. In order to obtain the equiva- 
lent of these 25,800 pounds of fertilizer used by Mr. Lewis, you must haul 
on your soil at least 300,000 pounds of stable-manure, including 210,000 
pounds of useless water, and then have less potash and phosphoric acid than 
you have in the fertilizer. What would you charge the city for hauling 150 
tons of stone? The chemical farmer trusts to the heavens iox his water and 
lets the " organic matter" stand where it is organized. The question is — 
will the 100 pounds of ash in the ton of stable-manure cost more than two 
cents per pound, with a fair estimate on the cost of hauling? The average 
stable-manure found in the farmer's barn-yard, is not by any means equal 
in value to that at Cornell University, because the best part of it is leeched 
and washed out by the rains. That at Cornell was exposed to the weather 
just about as average farm-manure is exposed, and then analyzed again. The 
ton then contained only 13 pounds of fertilizing matter worth only $1.42. 
This is much nearer the value of average farm-manure. It would require 
over 450,000 pounds of such manure to add to the land the plant-food given 
in the 25,800 pounds of fertilizer. What does it cost to handle and haul 
the 300,000 or more pounds of water in this manure? There are thousands 
of men keeping live stock, who admit that the sales of their animal pro- 
ducts will not yield them 50 cents a day for their labor unless they count 
the manure in at its highest value, without a word said about the cost of 
handling it. When the price of animal products falls so low that the farmer 
can not figure out fair wages for himself without estimating the dry matter 



Chemicals and Clover. 17 

in his stable-manure as worth more than two cents a pound, he had better 
change his plan and go to "chemicals and clover" for relief. There are 
farms where stable-manure will pay better than chemicals. How is one to 
know which these farms are? Nothing but careful figuring and experiment 
will show — when, including a fair price for labor, the dry matter hi your stable- 
manure must be valued at two cents a pound in order to give you a fair profit — 
plant-food in chemicals will be cheaper. I do not wish to have it thought 
that I have arguments to make against any forr of live-stock farming that 
is conducted on a profitable and scientific bas.j. Personally I prefer the 
dairy business to any other form of agriculture. What I argue against is 
unprofitable stock-keeping. There are plenty of farmers who do not love 
animals, or take the interest in their stock that will induce them to breed and 
feed it on scientific principles, because they are not stock-men by nature. 
Their animals are chiefly manure-makers, and are unprofitable unless an 
extra-high price is figured for the manure. No place on the average farm 
permits the loss of more actual money than the manure-pile ! Such farmers 
not only make stable-manure at a loss, but they injure the business of the 
men who love live stock and are specially fitted to breed and improve it and 
sell its products. More Chemicals and Clover would help both classes of 
farmers — one because they will provide cheaper fertility, and the other 
because their use will diminish competition in stock products. 

How many farmers have ever tried to estimate the cost of their stable- 
manure in this way ? It ought to make a very interesting ' 'sum " for some 
winter evening. Here, for example, is a statement of the crops fed on a 
southern Ohio farm, and the sales of animal products therefrom. 

" We fed during the year to 12 cows and two horses : 

25 tons of hay at $15 $375 00 

Stalks from 15 acres of corn 50 00 

600 bushels of corn at 40 cents 240 00 

200 bushels of turnips at 20 cents 4000 

6^4 tons of bran (bought) .... 100 00 

One ton of linseed meal (bought) 18 00 

Total value of feed $823 00 

Value received from the above feed as follows : 

3,280 pounds of butter at 25 cents $82000 

Four veal calves 20 00 

Six heifers at $15 apiece 90 00 

Hogs 100 00 

From chickens 50 00 

Total value {1,080 00 

Total value of feed 823 00 

Profit , {257 00 

Eight tons of straw were also used as bedding, and entered into the 

manure." 



1 8 The Rural Library. 

Now what I want to know is, What value must be placed on the manure 
from these animals in order to pay the "going wages " to the farmer and 
his family, and leave a fair profit on the investment ? What is it worth to 
"wait on" 12 cows, 2 horses, 10 head of young stock and 10 hogs? The 
same amount of labor ought to bring you in at least $500 when applied to 
other lines of business, oughtn't it ? You have no business to charge your- 
self less for horse or hand-work than you would charge the township for 
work on the road, or any " monopoly " or corporation for hauling or hand- 
ling goods. I don't believe you could raise and feed those crops, and care 
for the stock, and make the butter, for a cent less than $600 — that is, if you 
had the privilege of charging somebody else what you really thought the 
labor was worth. If you do charge that and allow a fair profit on your 
investment, taking the above figures as a basis for figuring, those animals 
will be obliged to make over 350 tons or 700,000 pounds of such manure as 
Prof. Roberts had after exposing his manure-pile to the weather. Manure 
from these animals will cost a good deal more than " two cents a pound," 
if you pay yourself fair wages. I speak of these figures just as though 
they were your own. You should make a similar statement regarding your 
own business before you decide that the cost of chemical fertilizers is so 
much greater than that of stable-manure. 

Mr. Lewis learned his lesson among the farmers on Long Island. There 
he met men naturally ' ' close" and stingy, who would ' ' look on both sides of 
a cent" before letting it go, using a ton of fertilizer to the acre! These 
men never would spend a cent uselessly, and he concluded there must be 
something in this heavy dressing of fertilizer. These Long Island farmers 
formerly used stable-manure. They were induced to use chemical fertil- 
izers in this way. Somebody proposed that they take the same amount of 
money that was paid for the stable-manure used on an acre and buy fertil- 
izers with it. They were using so much stable-manure at $2.50 and $3.00 
per ton, that that amount bought over a ton of fertilizer. This was used 
on potatoes and the result with that crop was not fully satisfactory. It was 
not until the grass followed the wheat that the " staying qualities" of the 
fertilizers were developed. Then they saw the fertilizers were safe when 
put in the soil ; that was the only thing they had been doubtful about. Mr. 
Lewis went home and tried this heavy fertilizing himself. On the first 
potato-crop the extra fertilizer did not seem to pay ; on the wheat-crop there 
still seemed a loss; but when the grass-crop came, there could be no doubt 
about it! It paid. The secret of making that farm successful had been 
learned ; and it has not been unlearned, for Mr. Lewis plans to increase 
rather than diminish his doses of fertilizers. To cut the supply would be 
to cut the crop. 



Chemicals and Clover. 19 

High-grade Fertilizers like High-grade Stock. 

After trying all sorts of fertilizers, the Cranbury farmers have decided 
that there is about the same difference between high-grade and low-grade 
goods that there is between well-bred and scrub stock. Starve a hired man 
and you weaken his back ; cut off a horse's feed and he will quit in the 
middle of a race. A potato-plant is as exacting as a horse or a hired man, 
and it is just as liable to suffer from a starvation diet as either, while one 
advantage it has over them is that it will never eat too much. It knows 
when it has enough and will take up only what it can assimilate. The rest 
it leaves in the soil, where it is as safe as money in the bank. 

A man is stronger, handsomer and makes a better citizen generally when 
fed on nutritious, digestible and well-cooked food. Sirloin-steak and green 
peas, bread and butter, will keep him fat, while gristle, pea-pods, bran and 
skim-milk cheese will barely support him. Yet these substances all come 
from the same materials that supply the health-giving food. The high- 
grade soluble fertilizer represents the steak, peas and bread ; plants live 
and thrive on it because they can utilize it at once. The low grade, insolu- 
ble goods are like tough, indigestible food — the plant may live on it, but it 
can not thrive and grow to its full capacity. Sawdust and grain both come 
from plants, grow from the same soil and contain the same elements of 
food. Yet a horse will starve to death on sawdust, but keep fat and do 
faithful work on grain. Why is this ? The food in the sawdust is not diges- 
tible and the horse cannot possibly change it into fat, muscle or force. It is 
inert and useless for feed. It is expensive at $1 per ton, while grain 
may be cheap at $25 per ton because it is digestible and the horse can 
utilize it at once and thrive upon it. It is just the same with plant-food as 
with animal-food. The high-grade, soluble fertilizers cost more per pound, 
but they are worth more because, like the grain fed to the horse, the plant 
can use them at once. There is no place in the world where lime is of more 
importance than in the life of a quick-growing plant like the potato. To 
feed a potato-plant on a low-grade, tough, insoluble fertilizer, is like turning 
a cow into a rocky hill-side pasture, where the grass has been dried into 
wood, and expecting her to pick up food enough to pay a profit. She simply 
can not do it, because her whole energy and time will be spent in hunting for 
her food. Such a pasture given as a gift is more costly than a good clover 
and blue-grass pasture rented for $2.00 per acre. The potato-plant is just 
likethecow. Put the soluble, high-grade fertilizer close to it and all around 
it and it will prosper and grow. Feed it hard stuff that it cannot digest, and 
you will wait long and impatiently for the profit that never will come. 

" Our taxes are the same whether we use 300 or 1,500 pounds of fertilizer," 



20 The Rural Library. 

said one fertilizer farmer. So they are. The tax on a horse is the same 
whether he stands still in the stable or earns his living every day. The tax 
on a cultivator is the same whether it reposes under a tree or is kept steadily 
at work in the potato-field. " If a bag of high-grade fertilizer contains 25 
per cent, more soluble plant-food than a bag of low-grade, I save 25 per 
cent, in time and work by using the former," said another farmer. You do; 
and this is just the argument of the breeder of high-grade cattle, hogs or 
sheep — he finds a value in concentrated excellence. These comparisons 
may be somewhat overdrawn, but they serve well as an illustration. One 
man gets 300 pounds of butter per year from one cow ; another has to feed 
two cows to get the same amount. One man may grow 300 bushels of 
potatoes on one acre, while his neighbor may work hard to grow the same 
number of bushels on three acres. The same thing has been observed with 
horses, sheep or any other animals or crops. It is easy to see which man 
makes a dollar with least work* Concentration of good qualities means 
crowding out waste, and in these times no business-man, be he farmer or 
factory-man, can afford to pay freight, cartage and labor interest on waste. 

Feeding a Hungry Soil. 

Mr. Lewis is fond of saying : " I will take any farm in the country that is 
reasonably level and has anything in the way of ' foundation,' no matter 
how poor it may be, and dotible its produci?ig capacity at a profit." 

There are plenty of farmers who will agree to improve any naturally 
strong soil that is "worn out." They will use sheep or dairy cows, and 
gradually improve the soil, but there will be no money profit while they are 
doing it. They must look to the improved condition of the soil for the 
returns from their labor. Mr. Lewis proposes to improve the farm and ' 'make 
money " at the same time. He will do it by using great doses of high-grade 
fertilizers on potatoes, and following with wheat, grass and corn. Right in 
his neighborhood is a farm that he takes pleasure in showing as an illustra- 
tion of his method of "doctoring land." It is a "hungry" farm, if 
there ever was one, though it has eaten many a hard day's work, many 
a hard-earned dollar, many a night's rest and tons of peace of mind 
and health. Its capacity for eating seemed unlimited because it was 
never more than half fed. There are about 60 acres of naturally good 
land. The former owner received it as a gift — " fell heir to it." For 
years he tried to make a living at the old-time methods of farming, keep- 
ing poor stock, manuring the wheat, and using a little fertilizer. He 
could not make a living, and finally sold the place to' its present owner, a 
young man who gave a mortgage for the whole value. That was some four 
years ago. When I visited the farm last year good judges said the crops 



Chemicals and Clover. 



21 



were double what they were when the farm was bought. The young man 
is paying off his mortgage, has painted and improved his buildings, and is 
gaining on his debt all the time. Last year he had u acres of corn, seven 
of potatoes, 14 of wheat, 16 of grass, and four in orchard and pasture. He 
keeps five cows and half a dozen sows, and "has all the stock he wants 
to carry." This year he used eight tons of fertilizer, and in addition seven 
bags of muriate of potash as, in common with many farmers in that section, 
he thinks his soil needs extra potash. He has not yet been through one 
round of the rotation, and yet his farm is paying a profit besides growing 
stronger all the time. .This young man is "aworker." But so are thousands 
of others who are struggling in the jaws of a hungry farm that seems bent 
on devouring them. How was this hungry mouth closed? By giving it a 
full meal — of food that went "right to the spot" — so soluble that the 
potato-roots could find it at once. This young man was brought up on a 
fertilizer farm, and taught to believe that the soil about him was able to 
take good care of all the fertilizer that could be put in it. The first thing 
he did, therefore, when he came to his own poor farm was to try to fatten 
it. Men who can not force themselves to use more than " two bags to the 
acre," will almost shudder at the faith that impelled this young farmer to 
pay over $300 cash for fertilizers and pour them into this hungry farm. 
$300! That is more than the value of the entire crop grown by the former 
owner. It was done, however, and the effect was the same as that of a full 
meal on a hungry man. An empty stomach means empty courage, nerveless 
hands, faltering purpose — poor work. A lunch is but an exasperation. A 
full meal supports and stiffens every energy of mind and body, and great 
results are possible. 

I once saw two men start work in a lumber-camp in Michigan. One had a 
home, of his own and had been well fed and nourished. The other had no 
home, but had knocked about the stables and cheap hotels in Saginaw. One 
was prepared to exert his full strength at once, because, having been well 
nourished, he was in "good condition," with no feeling of "goneness" 
about him. The other was hungry and chilled, poorly nourished and with 
no provision of food stored in his body to supply the waste of muscular 
energy or to insure heat for the body. Without plenty of food he could 
not do profitable work. The first man ate a fair meal and was ready for 
business. The other man was "empty." He simply devoured beans, pork, 
potatoes and bread till the cook looked tired. Then he got up from the table, 
stretched himself, and went at his work like a giant. The "full meal" did it. 
Had he eaten no more than the other man, he would have grown hungry 
and weary before the day was half done. The way to get profit out of his 
work, was to feed him all he wanted. It is just the same with an " empty " 



22 The Rural Library. 

soil. When this hungry farm received, for the first time in years, a ' ' square 
meal," it shut its mouth and went to work. It became a friend instead of a 
tyrant — a slave instead of a master. This young farmer says he could not 
have gained on his mortgage without the use of fertilizers, and the only 
change he would make in starting again would be to use "more fertilizers." 

While at Cranbury I took particular pains to ask these farmers why they 
used so much fertilizer. Here are some of their answers. 

Farmer L. — "When we put fertilizers on our potatoes we look forward 
two years to the grass-crop. That is why we use so much. For years 
and years we thought, with other farmers, that fertilizers were so soluble 
that it was only safe to put on just enough for one crop. That is all non- 
sense. On ordinarily level ground we find fertilizers as safe in the soil as 
out of it — safer too with wheat and grass coming along to make use of them. 
The more fertilizers I use, the more money I make." 

Farmer S. — "Under the fertilizer system, my crops, grain, grass and 
potatoes, have fairly doubled in size. When I started the heavy use of 
fertilizers my father, an old man, did not think it would pay. He thought 
we were putting too much cash 'into the ground.' The old plan was to 
apply just as much fertilizer as a single crop could use and no more, as it 
was thought that what the crop left would be washed out and wasted. So 
400 or 500 pounds per acre were all they dared to use. My father could 
not see how all the money spent for 1,500 pounds could comeback. He 
lived long enough, however, to see such an increase in the crops that he was 
convinced that the heavy fertilizing pays. I am sure the only way to make 
fertilizers pay is to use lots of them. I do not know of a single farmer who 
has worked up to 1,500 pounds, who tvould ever go back to a smaller 
quantity.'" 

Farmer D. — " I have used fertilizers for five years. I use 1,500 pounds 
per acre on potatoes. My wife sometimes complains about the amount of 
cash I spend on fertilizers ; but my experience is that the more I spend in 
this way, the more, proportionately, I get back. Last year I sold $1,100 
worth of hay. I have 100 acres of land. Our farms are assessed for the 
same amount whether we use 400 or 1,500 pounds per acre. If by using 
1,500 pounds we can double our crops (and we have done so), it is good 
business policy to use the larger amount." 

It is evident that a hungry soil can not feed itself and have any strength 
left for paying a profit. Simply put back in the form of manure the crops 
that are grown on that soil, and the gain will not be rapid enough to pay 
for labor and taxes. Buy grain to feed to live stock, and leave the manure 
on the farm, and the farm will improve, but will it pay while improving ? 
Is the grain cheaper than fertilizer would be ? That is the point to figure on. 



Chemicals ana Clover. 23 

Many "authorities" tell us that poor land can be brought up to a pro- 
ductive point — that is, to a condition that will insure a good crop of clover 
at any time — by the use of green manures alone. This may be true in some 
cases, but not in the majority, and in any event the process is slow and 
tedious. One of the best experiments conducted in this line was that of 
Mr. L. D. Davis, of Rhode Island. Mr. Davis took a run-down "aban- 
doned " farm and attempted to improve its condition by means of green 
crops alone. First rye was sown early in September. This made a fair 
growth, which was plowed under in June and the field seeded to buck- 
wheat. In September the buckwheat was plowed in and another seeding 
of rye given. This rye grew better than the other, and in the following 
June this growth was plowed in and a seeding of millet given. The millet 
was plowed under in September and rye with Red-Top and Timothy sown 
for a permanent crop. The yield of rye was only fair even after all the 
labor of growing and plowing in four different crops, while the soil was not 
in condition to make sure of a catch of clover. Mr. Davis wisely concludes : 

" 1. That it is not wise to depend on this process alone for fertilization. 
Though often told that plowing in green crops restores all the elements of 
fertility in the proper proportions needed for future crops, I am satisfied 
that they do not in all cases meet the demand even in that direction. All 
poor soils are not sterile from the loss of precisely the same ingredients, 
and all green crops do not hold the several elements of fertility in the same 
proportions, whatever may be said to the contrary. And so, as a matter of 
fact, it requires as much skill to adapt growing vegetation to particular 
soils as it does to use special fertilizers profitably under similar conditions ; 
and for this reason many of the claims that have been put forth for green 
manuring from time to time are quite too broad and comprehensive. 

"2. The time required to produce the desired results by green manuring 
alone is altogether too extended. In this case two full years and four 
crops turned under, together with much plowing, harrowing and seeding, 
made but a beginning ; and at the same rate of progress it must have taken 
several more summers to have produced very marked results. I doubt if 
the land had yet reached a point where a fair growth of clover could have 
been secured to be used to advantage in the same way, or otherwise. 

' ' 3. The application of other fertilizers should accompany green manuring 
— first, because they will give a larger and richer crop to be turned under, 
and secondly, because they will hasten the period when the desired results 
will be attained. To the farmer as well as to the banker, time is money, 
and if the enrichment of the soil requires three or five years by one process 
and but one or two by the other, the difference in expense will be found 
much greater than is at first supposed. 



24 The Rural Library. 

" 4. And so I should not again attempt to reclaim barren land by green 
manuring alone. My experiences with green manuring and chemical fer- 
tilizers together were far more satisfactory." 

This trying to farm poor land with green manures alone, is just like try- 
ing to winter a dairy cow on hay or straw. It is folly to expect her to pay 
a profit on such food. She simply can not .do it, because she can only give 
back in the pail a part of what you put in her mouth. She must have 
feed — grain ; hay alone will not answer ; and grass alone will not answer for 
the hungry soil — it must have something stronger. 

A Substitute for Stable- Manure Possible. 

What is stable-manure ? Waste. Feed an animal hay or stalks and grain ; 
a portion of the food is used to maintain life and make growth — the rest 
passes through the system as waste. The same elements that make the 
grain valuable as food are found in chemical fertilizers. It is true that an 
animal could not live on chemical fertilizers — though travelers in Sweden 
tell us how, in the colder parts of that country, the cows are trained to eat 
the horse-manure, and sustain life on it, with the addition of a little grain. 
Another curious instance where animals feed on " plant-food " is found in 
Connecticut to-day, where some cows and sheep are fed regularly through 
the winter on salted fish ! When the Pilgrims first came to Plymouth they 
hired an Indian to show them how to plant corn. He caught great quantities 
of alewives or herrings, and put one in each hill of corn to serve as a fertilizer. 
Now this same kind of fish is fed to cows and sheep with apparently good 
results. Animal-food differs from plant-food only in form. The feeding- 
organs of the plant take the plant-food and combine it with water, fats, starch, 
and other substances, and make animal-food out of it. Before this animal- 
food can serve again as plant-food it must decay and be acted upon by heat, 
water and acids. When hay is fed to animals a part is digested. The 
waste of this digested portion passes away in the urine. The solids of the 
manure are not digested. They are simply ground up finely and softened 
by heat, water and the acids of the animal system. It is the same with 
grain. The digested 'part of it is excreted only in the urine, which is soluble 
plant-food. The plant-food in chemical fertilizers is also digested, because 
it has been acted upon by strong acids and other powerful reducing agents. 
It, therefore, supplies better and more soluble plant-food than is found in 
the grain fed to animals. In what way is hay improved, as manure, by 
passing it through cattle ? In Florida linseed-meal is put directly in the 
soil, and makes a good fertilizer. In parts of the country bran is used to 
grow potatoes. An Orange-county cream-man puts skim-milk directly upon 
his grass. A good illustration of the difference between plant-food and 



Chemicals and Clover. 25 

animal-food is given in the use of cotton-seed meal. This substance is used 
both to feed animals and as a fertilizer. To the southern farmer it is the 
cheapest and most easily obtainable form of nitrogen, because it is a waste 
of a home-grown product, easily applied, good to mix with other manures, 
and "more lasting" in the soil than some mineral forms of nitrogen when 
drenched by the heavy southern rains. At the north this same product is 
one of the greatest of boons to the dairyman. It is a "concentrated" 
food, and thus makes a fine addition to ensilage, straw, roots or other foods 
that are "bulky " from an excess of water or useless fiber. But let this 
cotton-seed meal that is to be fed to stock become damaged by water, heat 
or other causes so that it becomes discolored, and its value as a stock-food 
is destroyed. It is no longer safe to feed it to cattle, even if they would eat 
it. But while this slight change spoils it for stock-feeding, it is just as 
good for use as a fertilizer as it ever was, giving probably as quick and sure 
results as though it had been fed to animals and excreted as manure. All 
farmers have seen damaged grain of various kinds that had been burned, 
"heated" or wet. The stock will not eat such grain, and it would not be 
considered safe to feed it to them anyway ; but any farmer knows it will 
make good manure, and that if he puts it right on the manure-pile and 
works it in well, the manure will be as strong as it would have been had he 
fed that much more grain to his stock. And he would have received the 
manurial benefit of the damaged grain if he had simply put it on the ground 
to be cultivated without working it into the manure-pile at all. The benefit 
might have been somewhat slower, because unquestionably the fermenting 
processes that go on in the manure act to render the insoluble plant-food 
more soluble, and consequently more active ; but what I say is that none of 
the fertility in the grain will be lost because it has not been eaten by ani- 
mals. Several years ago a Connecticut farmer had a chance to buy a car- 
load of damaged corn-meal, weighing 56,000 pounds, for $50. A sample 
submitted to the Connecticut station contained nitrogen, potash and phos- 
phoric acid worth $5.16 per ton. Dr. S. W. Johnson said of it: "This 
meal has about twice as much nitrogen as good stable or yard-manure, and 
this nitrogen is doubtless at least twice as available or effective as that of 
stable-manure ; it also contains nearly the same proportions of phosphoric 
acid and potash as stable-manure. Heavy applications would, for a time, 
greatly improve the texture and water-holding capacity of light, sandy 
soils." Thus we see how easily animal food is changed to suitable plant- 
food. My cows frequently pull clover-hay out of their racks and trample 
it under their feet. They will not eat it then, or will they eat the hay which 
the " next cow " has " mussed over " and breathed upon. This spoiled hay 
goes into the manure. Why, aside from the fact that it is not chewed and 



26 The Rttral Library. 

ground up into very fine particles, is it not as good manure as the rest of 
the hay from the same rack, which was eaten and excreted ? In fact, is it not 
better ? I have given these illustrations to try and make clear the fact that 
it is not absolutely necessary to feed grain and hay to live stock in order to 
" work them into plant-food." The most that animals do is to take out the 
greater part of ~\he fats in our grain and hay and make them over into new 
forms so that we can sell them. These fats are good for nothing as manure ; 
when sold in the form of animal products, do they bring in enough to pay 
for all labor and the interest on the investment ? 

The ancient idea was, that animals added a value to the food they 
took into their mouths ; in some mysterious way they were supposed 
to grow and thrive on the food, and still make the hay worth more as manure 
than it was before it was eaten. These same folks believed that plants 
developed 'lime, potash and phosphoric acid, as a result of vital force. One 
idea is as sensible as the other. We know better now. The simple ques- 
tion is this : Does sun-cured grass fed to cattle, make more valuable manure 
than the same grass permitted to decay in the field, and acted upon by rain, 
sun and frost ? In other words, Are heat, sun and frost as valuable "re- 
ducing agents " as the forces of living animals ? The fertilizer farmer 
claims that there is substantially little difference in the manurial value of 
grass acted upon by nature's forces and that fed to and excreted by animals. 
He also claims that his chemicals supply more and better plant-food than 
can be obtained for an equal value in grain. Chemicals and clover put to- 
gether in the field, give as strong manure as can be hauled out of any barn- 
yard, because they supply the same elements that are bought in hay and 
grain. More than this, it has been abundantly proved that not one-half of 
the fertility in stable-manure is available for a quick-growing plant, while 
practically all of the high-grade fertilizers can be used at once. It is true 
that many failures have been made with green manuring on poor soils. 
That was because the farmers did not realize that green crops alone did no 
more for the soil than good hay alone would do for a dairy cow in winter. 
It might keep her in good health, but she could not give a profitable mess 
of milk until she had feed. In the same way the land needed feed — more 
fertility than there was in the green crop. Not chemicals alone, not clover 
alone, but chemicals and clover, are the secret of Mr. Lewis's success. Rye 
has been suggested as a substitute for the clover in the rotation. It has also 
been claimed that potash and phosphoric acid alone will answer as well as 
a "complete fertilizer." Mr. Lewis does not favor either change. The 
chief value of the clover lies in its root-action. It "digs deep " while rye- 
plants sleep. It catches and retains fertility far down in the soil, and is 
the best "nitrogen trap" in the world. As to "complete fertilizers," a 



Chemicals and Clover. 27 

farmer may feel sure of them — potash and phosphoric acid alone make at 
best but an experiment. The crop may fall off in yield for want of the 
missing nitrogen. All farmers recognize the great value of clover. Those 
who advocate the use of rye or other green crops in the place of clover are 
generally in sections where, for some reason, the latter plant is not sure of 
a "catch." For example, a writer in The Rural Nezu-Yorker, living in 
Delaware, said : 

"Green rye adapts itself easily to poor circumstances, and will make a 
good crop and is a cheap manure, costing only for seed and the time of 
planting and plowing, and it is there on the land when needed to be turned 
under early or late in the season, as the case may be. Hence my claim for 
green manuring with rye instead of clover, the late maturing of which 
causes the loss of the season, except for wheat or a late planting of potatoes, 
Clover with us, while a moderately sure crop, is not always certain ; the 
last two seasons it has failed to catch, except in places — another reason for 
my advocacy of green rye. Clover is undoubtedly the richer in fertility, 
but the drawbacks to it entitle green rye to the first place." 

This man proposed to grow potatoes, wheat, timothy, corn and rye, and 
to use bone and potash, plowing in the rye for the potatoes. This is a 
partnership of "Chemicals and Rye " In this partnership "Chemicals" 
has less capital because it lacks nitrogen, while "Rye" is weaker than 
clover, both above and below ground. 

Mr. Lewis, I believe, does not go so far as to say that clover is absolutely 
necessary to the success of his rotation, but he does say that clover is better 
than any other plant, and that it will pay one to go to any reasonable ex- 
pense in the way of draining and tillage to insure a perfect "catch." Clover 
never fails on these heavily-fertilized farms, while it frequently does fail on 
lands less carefully cultivated. It is evident that land must be in " pretty 
good order" before clover will grow upon it. Rye is probably more of a 
' ' rustler " than clover, but the latter does twice the work for the farmer who 
will take pains to coax it. 

Chemicals and Clover vs. Steers and Stover. 

On another page I have given the figures, showing what Mr. Lewis sells 
from his 100-acre farm. Here are some statements from farms where 
stable-manure is the basis of fertility. The farmers who make them are 
enterprising and energetic men — far in advance of the practice and profits 
of their neighbors. 

First is a statement of what was sold from a 200-acre farm in western 
New York, within thirty-five miles of Buffalo. On this farm are kept forty 



28 The Rural Library. 

sheep, twelve cows and several horses. This farmer bought $250 worth of 
feed during the year : 

Wheat $n° 00 

Barley 160 00 

Beans 590 00 

Potatoes 70 00 

Hay 60 00 

Wool 40 00 

Lambs and sheep 100 00 

8 000 gallons milk to Buffalo 720 00 

Calves 12 50 

Pears 6 00 

Total $1,928 co 

Now comes the business record of an Indiana farm of 200 acres — 140 
tillable — within twenty-five miles of Chicago. On this farm are kept eighteen 
cows, the same number of hogs, and twelve horses and colts : 

1,159 cans milk (8 gallons per can) $772 15 

5 cows 115 00 

13 veal calves 50 70 

16 hogs 165 70 

chickens and eggs 37 4° 

41K tons of hay 243 96 

34°K bushels wheat 293 79 

388% " rye . . 174 30 

566-7 " corn . . . ' ' . 29 91 

183^ " potatoes 161 70 

16 cords wood 48 co 

Total $2,092 61 

This is what was done on a 160-acre farm in Central Illinois — a farm that 
rarries about thirty head of cattle, twenty hogs, ten horses and fifty sheep : 

Winter wheat $185 78 

Hay 37 70 

Apples 58 50 

Hogs 457 75 

Sheep and wool 3f6 10 

Cattle 200 00 

Horse 95 00 

Butter 85 00 

Total * ■ $1,425 83 

The sales from this farm were smaller than the average, as a large stock 
of annuals were left to be carried over. It is not likely that Chemicals 
and Clover would pay better than stock here, but the sales are useful for 
comparison. 



Chemicals and Clover. 29 

Or take this record of an Iowa farm of 160 acres, on which are kept fifty- 
six cattle, sixty hogs and nine horses. 

3,019 pounds of butter, which brought, after deducting freight, tubs 

and commission $497 02 

Eight steers 453 37 

Four cows and heifers 99 38 

44 hogs 453 22 

Hay 46 07 

Poultry and eggs 43 68 

Honey 16 34 

Total $1,609 ° 8 

From this should be deducted : 

For corn bought and fed $22967 

For oats 28 35 

Total $258 02 

Now, in what way 'is this farm in "exhausted" New Jersey inferior as a 
profit-payer to these excellent stable-manure farms ? There is less work, 
less worry, and less waiting, in the firm of Chemicals and Clover than in the 
partnership of Steers and Stover. 

Water is a Good Thing to Sell, 
but a poor thing to buy. A "chemicals and clover" rotation can not pay 
unless there is one crop in it that is largely water. The potato-crop is ad- 
mirably suited to this rotation, because it is seventy-five percent, water. The 
plants take the high-priced fertilizer and mix it with cheap water, so that 
the farmer is able to sell tons of the cheapest substance in the world. Just 
consider this a moment. In the 4000 bushels of potatoes that Mr. Lewis 
sold this year were 180,000 pounds of water, for which he obtained over 
one-half cent per pound. The water was given to him. His part of the 
business was to have on hand strong thrifty plants, capable of combining 
his soluble fertilizers with this free water. That man in New York state, 
with his 8,000 gallons of milk, only sold about 75,000 pounds of water, 
while the Indiana dairyman sold but little over 80,000 pounds. The water 
in the potatoes was handled perhaps six times, and almost entirely by ma- 
chinery. The water in the milk was squeezed out of the cows at 730 differ- 
ent times during the year. Other water-plants that can be used are tomatoes, 
cabbage, beets, melons or berries. I know of men who are growing all 
these crops in this same rotation of grass, corn and wheat. Water, heat, 
air and sunshine are the great gifts of nature to the farmer. We can not 
sell air because it does not weigh enough to bring a price. We sell heat in 
the form of fats and starch in our hay, grain and potatoes, but we do not 
get full price for it because it must be manufactured and made into new 



30 The Rural Library. 

forms before it can warm the body. Sunshine we can not sell, as we can 
not measure, weigh or estimate its value. Water, the freeest and most 
abundant gift of all, we can sell all made up — ready for use. 

What a Hill Farmer Thinks of It. 

Mr. J. W. Newton is a Vermont dairyman. His is a natural-pasturage 
farm, too hilly and rocky for chemicals and clover. Yet this does not preju- 
dice him. He sees the advantages of this system, as he has said in The Rural 
New-Yorker : " Just think what a saving it would be to have no manure 
to handle, no pasture-fences to keep up, no milking to tie one down at 
home, no milk and cream and butter to handle ! What a vast amount of 
labor the new system saves ! I hope a great many of the farmers in the 
thickly settled regions will adopt this new departure. We poor farmers 
who live back among the mountains and hills must keep on milking and 
hauling manure; and the fewer cattle kept, the better will cattle-raising 
and dairying pay those who keep stock. Our fields are better suited to cat- 
tle and sheep than to grain-growing, and we can not well get along without 
stock. 

"If a man makes more than the average farmer, he must get out of the rut 
in which the average farmer moves. He must make a better article, or put 
it up in better shape, or produce it at a season when prices are higher, or 
make it at a less cost than his neighbors in order to get a better price. All 
this requires skill, and on top of this he needs business ability to keep his 
profits from the clutches of the middlemen. Now, butter-making requires 
as much skill as the other branches of farming, or more, in order to make 
it a success, but it is confining work. 

"Is farming with chemicals and clover going to solve the labor problem ? 
It ought to where it can be adopted. It takes lots of time to milk on a 
farm, lots of hard work to care for the manure, lots of expense to keep up 
fences. A man who has to milk ten or a dozen cows twice a day can't do 
much farm work before breakfast or after supper. If I could only get rid 
of every animal on my farm except the team and the family cow, wouldn't 
it be nice ? I could get at some of the jobs that are waiting to be done, and 
which, as things are, will have to wait a good while longer. 

"Perhaps not every farmer can grow potatoes and wheat, but most can 
grow clover, and they can find other money-crops to grow instead of these. 
But the outlook for wheat is very good, and potatoes are high once in two 
or three years, as a rule. If a man tries, he can grow crops which he 
thinks are not fitted to his soil. A few years ago I was almost discouraged 
about growing potatoes ; but I have been learning more about it every year ; 
last year I had the best crop I have ever grown. " 



Chemicals and Clover. 31 

Chemicals, Clover and Sheep. 

An Ohio farmer, Mr. O. G. Williams, writes that he has been carefully 
feeling his way towards chemicals and clover. He then says: "The 
question has occurred to me, What is the most profitable use that can be 
made of the clover hay grown in this rotation ? To friend Lewis and 
others who are following this system of farming I should like to suggest the 
keeping of sheep. Some live stock must or ought to be kept. The great 
objection to keeping cows in connection with grain and vegetable-farming 
is the extra work required. Dairying is a business of itself. The fattening 
of steers has long since proved unremunerative. I know of no live stock 
better calculated to fit into this rotation than sheep. By keeping the mut- 
ton breeds and raising early lambs the extra work involved will come at a 
season of the year when there is most leisure. February or March is a 
good time to have the lambs dropped. Without any extra help one can 
add materially to his income in this way. The surplus coarse feed grown 
can be profitably consumed by the sheep — more profitably, I think, than 
any other kind of live stock, considering the work required. But what 
about pasturing them ? If one has no permanent pasture, it is possible in 
most localities to hire pasture-lots at quite low rates. Perhaps pasturing 
the clover one year may be desirable. In case of inability to get sufficient 
pasture, February lambs can be sold in May and the sheep can follow 
them soon if fed liberally on grain, and another flock can be purchased the 
following winter. Formerly I kept a few cows and sent the milk to a 
cheese-factory — the system of dairying in vogue here — but am convinced 
that more money is to be made from mutton sheep with much less labor. 
They make a desirable stock and insure an income twice a year — from wool 
and lambs. Some localities are not favorable to sheep, but where they do 
well I think they will make a valuable addition to the firm of " Chemicals 
and Clover." 

Mr. Lewis has a farm on which there is practically no waste land ; it is all 
capable of high culture except a small wood-lot. If he had any waste land 
or any land so situated that it would make better pasture than a clover-sod 
he would keep sheep. As it is, more live stock would simply interfere with 
his rotation. He has not the buildings, pastures or fences needed for 
keeping stock. He can now sell his prime clover-hay to dairymen for 
enough to make it pay. He estimates that the profit of stock-keeping less 
the price he now obtains for the hay, would not pay him for his work. At 
the same time he believes that Mr. Williams is correct, and that it will pay 
him to sell his clover-hay to sheep rather than to a commission-man 
The result will be stronger, and better corn and consequently better pota- 
toes, grass and wheat. In no case would he use a lighter dressing of fertil- 



32 The Rural Library. 

izers. There can be no doubt that nine out of ten failures with chemicals 
are due to the fact that the farmer did not use enough of them. There are 
also places on many stock-farms where chemicals and clover would pay. On 
my own farm in New Jersey, some of the best land was at the top of a steep 
hill over half a mile from the barn. It would be folly to try and haul 
stable-manure up that steep hill. I can take, in one load of fertilizers, all 
the fertility there is in fifteen loads of stable manure, and I can grow clov- 
sod on the ground that is fully equal to any hay that can be fed to stock. 
The crop on this high land may all be hauled down hill, while the manure 
must go up hill. Water in stable-manure or in anything else will never 
run uphill, but it will slide dotvn with ease. Short hauls for stable-man- 
ure. Plenty of outlying fields are neglected and deserted because it does 
not pay to haul stable-manure to them. These are the fields for chemicals 
and clover., even when the farm is crowded with live stock. 

There are many stock and dairy farms whose owners, past middle age, 
have no need to work and worry over the care of animals. At the same 
time they feel that the stock must be kept, or the farm will run down. 
Such farms may be given up to the production of hay, and maintained for 
years by the application of fertilizers alone. If the grass crop did fail for 
any reason, it could be seeded anew with grain and clover, using fertilizers 
with the grain. Annual dressings of fertilizers would render stable-manure 
entirely unnecessary. 

The Substance of the Matter. 

I look upon this chemicals and clover farming as the best illustra- 
tion I have seen of the possibilities that lie within the reach of the Ameri- 
can farmer. I do not believe that any stable-manure farm in the country, 
of ioo acres, can show larger sales of the four staples, wheat, corn, potatoes 
and grass, or show one-half the profit in time and money that chemicals and 
clover make for Mr. Lewis. These are strong statements; but they are 
made with confidence. Farmers may well ponder them. Science is rapid- 
ly freezing the "old rut" over. The man who sticks inside it until the 
crust hardens over him is beyond the help of love or legislation. 

The chemical farmer has the following creed: " Supply a full meal of the 
cheapest manure to the best plants of the crops that suit your market and farm. " 
Chemical fertilizers for these Cranbury farmers, are cheaper than stable- 
manures, for several reasons : 

i. Meat-making does not pay, and the cost of hauling and spreading 
city manure is too great. 

2. The plant-food in chemical fertilizers is more available and better 
suited to the wants of the potato-plant than that in stable-manure. It costs 



Chemicals and Clover. 33 

less than the grain that must be fed to stock to give stable manure any val- 
ue. Strong clover-sod, with chemicals fed directly to the soil, gives better, 
cleaner and cheaper manure than clover-hay and grain fed to farm animals. 

3. On compact, level soils fertilizers are as permanent as stable-manure. 
No rain can wash them so far into the soil that the roots of a clover-plant 
cannot follow and capture them. Without clover they might be lost ; with 
clover, never. The one thing that has done more than anything else to 
keep farmers from using chemicals is the belief that they will "wash out" 
of the soil and be lost. That this is nonsense has been proved by scientific 
experiments time and again; but the most eloquent refutation of the charge 
is offered by the wheat, the Timothy and the clover that follow the potatoes 
without an ounce of additional fertilizer. The man who is afraid to trust 
his soil with a " full meal " should get out of farming as quickly as possible, 
because his farm will repudiate him — and serve him right. 

I have said that farming with chemicals and clover is special farm- 
ing. I repeat it. A farm must possess certain natural characteristics in 
order to make this system profitable. It must be level, or nearly so, well 
drained, easily tilled, capable of growing clover, near a good market, and 
with a fair proportion of naturally good potato-ground. 

The best way to start such a system would be with the corn-crop, using 
all the stable-manure possible, and following with potatoes, using 1,200 or 
1,500 pounds of fertilizer per acre, with wheat and grass to follow. The 
more fertilizer used, the cleaner and more careful the needed cultivation. 
Where the soil is kept constantly stirred and loosened, a very light shower 
will show an effect on the plants at once — quicker than if stable-manure is 
used. 

A system of chemical-farming must include some crop that is largely 
water which makes quick growth, sells at a good price, and can give a 
large crop per acre and utilize most of the nitrogen in the fertilizer. With 
the majority of farmers, potatoes will fill this place better than any other 
crop. 

Chemical farming will pay in any locality where the cost of chemicals 
and clover-sod is less than that of the manure made from clover or other 
hay and grain. The common objection to chemical farming grows out of 
the fact that this comparison of manure-cost has never been fairly made. 
What the farmer wants to study out is the comparative cost of the nitro- 
gen, potash and phosphoric acid in stable-manure as compared with their 
cost in the fertilizer. Hundreds of farmers now realize that it pays them 
to sell their whole grain and buy waste or by-products like bran, shorts or 
oil-meal. The chemical farmer has gone even further and found that it 



34 



The Rural Library. 



pays him to sell his nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid — combined with 
tvaler — in the finished state, and buy them dry in the crude state. 

We are on the eve of a wonderful development in scientific farming. 
Driven by ambition, by scientific investigation, or by poverty, farmers are 
coming nearer and nearer to the truths that underlie a rational and profit- 
able treatment of the soil. The faith that one inch added to the tillable 
depth of one acre of land is worth more than the whole surface of five new 
acres, is the rock upon which American agriculture must fasten itself. 
There is hope and prosperity in the future for the farmer who will be true 
to his farm. No naturally good land within reasonable distance of a mar- 
ket need ever be turned out as a pauper or helpless cripple. 







Chemicals and Qlover 



Farming with Concentrated Dung 



A RECORD OF 



Successful Farm Operations in New Jersey, where High-Grade 

Complete Manures and Sod supply a Cheaper Manure 

than that obtained from keeping Live Stock 



HERBERT IV. COLUNGIVOOD 

Managing Editor of The Rural New-Yorker. 



New York 

The Rural Publishing Company 

Times Building 



Other Numbers of 
THE RURAL LIBRARY SERIES. 

Issued (Monthly. $? a Year. 

THE TUBEROUS BEGONIA. Illustrated. 20 cts. 

RATS, How to Rid Buildings of. 20 cts. 

HOW TO PLANT A PLACE. 60 illustrations. A 

concise guide for popular us e. 20 cts. 
THE BUSINESS HEN. Breeding and Feeding 

Poultry for Profit. By H. W. Collingwood. 

Double number. 40 cts. 

CROSS BREEDING AND HYBRIDIZING. The 

Philosophy of theCrossingof Plants,Considered 
with Reference to their Cultivation. 40 cts. 

Other Announcements to Follow. 



copyrighted, 1892, by 

The Rural Publishing Company. 



electrotyped and printed 8y 

The Rural Publishino Company. 



SECRETS of SUCCESS; 



OR, 



many Years of Experienced Farming. 




Farmers of but scanty means, 
On whom the arm of Progress leans, 
Your effort should be, to advance — 
Your time improve; your crops enhance; 
Your rights enforce; your wrongs redress - 
Here read the Secrets of Success. 



SECRETS OF SUCCESS 
Contains Much 
Practical and Available 
Information. 

THfc MOST COMMON-SENSE, PRACTICAL 

FARMER'S BOOK EVER PUT IN PRINT. 

Many copies have been sold without one single complaint. It 
meets the approval of the best farmers of the country, as our 
methods the past season produced 

6,500 bushels of farm cereals, consisting 1 of Potatoes, 
600 bushels per acre ; wheat, 48 to 52 bushels per 
acre; Oats, 108 bushels (weighing- 49 pounds per 
bushel) ; Corn, 100 bushels per acre ; Beans, 104 
bushels ; Rye 78 bushels — all from 40 acres. 
The methods treated upon in SECRETS OF SUCCESS are Inten- 
sive or Diversified Farming, which means small farms -well tilled. 
We could produce a book of testimonials to the grand success ob- 
tained by purchasers of SECRETS OF SUCCESS. Bound in cloth. 
Contains 368 pages. Mailed, post paid, on receipt of price, $1.25- 
All the proceeds from the Gilt-Edge Farm find ready sale for seed 
purposes, for which we issue an Annual Seed Catalogue — mailed 
free to all who -wish first-class seed. We offer none except of our 
own growing. Address 



Lock-Box ij6y. 



H. H. DEYEERE, 

The Gilt-Edge Farm, Piqua, Ohio. 



KffiD! READ! RfflD! 



T 



HE INFORMATION on this page is worth a $10 bill to every practical 
farmer. Read it through carefully. It won't take you over five min- 
utes. Pretty good pay, you say ($2 a minute), but it's a fact. Every 
farmer has read of, and many farmers throughout: the entire country 
have used with great success, the 

Breed U/eeder, 

The subject of level and shallow cultivation having been well written up dur- 
ing the last twelve months. In nearly every article you will read : "The 
Breed Weeder is conspicuously mentioned as the implement for this work." 

The Rural New-Yorker, October 3, 1891, in answer to a correspondent, 
says : " We think Breed's Weeder would prove as effective as any other one 
tool in killing small weeds. 

It is the only tool necessary for the complete cultivation of all farm crops 
during the first month of their growth. Read what noted farmers say re- 
garding it : 

" While-one row of potatoes was being hoed by hand, it being too near the edge to use 
the weeder, my son hoed, with the Weeder and one horse, and more thoroughly, thirty- 
six rows. I must have two next year." — T. B. Terry. 

" I regard Breed's Weeder as one of the most valuable implements a farmer can afford 
to employ." — J. J. Thomas, Inventor of the Smoothing- Harrow. 

' ' We are using the Weeder to-day on a field of potatoes a foot high, and it does the 
best work it has done yet, for we have hit just the right condition of the soil.'." — Waldo 
F. Brown. 

" Your Weeder is about all that can be asked for as a weed-killer and surface-pulver- 
jzer." — John Gould. 

" Its advantage is that it can comb out all the fine weeds from the hills of corn and 
potatoes better than the harrow, and later in the season, and so fully supersede the hoe, 
doing better work than the hoe can, and doing it ten times as fast. I predict that it will 
come into very wide general use among progressive farmers everywhere on decent soil." 
— W. I. Chamberlain, formerly of the Iowa Agricultural College. 

"I have only words of commendation for your Weeder.''— Chas. W. Blew, Manager 
of the Northwestern Agriculturist. 

' ' I have just finished digging 2,600 bushels of potatoes from eight acres which were 
cultivated with the Weeder. The weeds from the entire piece you could carry off in your 
coat pocket. So much for the Weeder."— J. H. Warn , Potato- Grower, Richards, Ohio. 

Now, what do you think of it ? Don't you believe that you need one ? Is 
it not better to let your horse do your hoeing, if it can be done equally well 
and ten times as rapidly ? It is in the line of progressive farming. It is in 
the line of scientific farming. If the farmer of to-day is to keep up with the 
procession of progress, he must look carefully into the merits of all imple- 
ments which are intended and adapted to further his interests. In order to 
get more full information, send postal card with your address upon it. Don't 
delay. Write plainly to 

THE UMVraL WEEDER COnnMT. 

North Weare, N. H. 

Or, THE GEO. L. SQUIER MFG. CO., General Agents, New York City. 



SECRETS of SUCCESS; 



OR, 



many Years or Experienced Farming. 




Farmers of but scanty means, 
On whom the arm of Progress leans, 
Your effort should be, to advance — 
Your time improve; your crops enhance; 
Your rights enforce; your wrongs redress — 
Here read the Secrets of Success. 



SECRETS OF SUCCESS 
Contains Much 
Practical and Available 
Information. 

THfc MOST COMMON-SENSE, PRACTICAL 

FARMER'S BOOK EVER PUT IN PRINT. . . • 

Many copies have been sold -without one single complaint. It 
meets the approval of the best farmers of the country, as our 
methods the past season produced 

6,500 bushels of farm cereals, consisting of Potatoes, 
600 bushels per acre ; wheat, 48 to 52 bushels per 
acre; Oats, 108 bushels (weighing- 49 pounds per 
bushel) ; Corn, lOO bushels per acre ; Beans, 104 
bushels ; Rye 78 bushels— all from 40 acres. 
The methods treated upon in SECRETS OF SUCCESS are Inten- 
sive or Diversified Farming-, which means small farms well tilled. 
We could produce a book of testimonials to the grand success ob- 
tained by purchasers of SECRETS OF SUCCESS. Bound in cloth. 
Contains 368 pages. Mailed, post- paid, on receipt of price, $1.25. 
All the proceeds from the Gilt-Edge Farm find ready sale for seed 
purposes, for which we issue an Annual Seed Catalogue — mailed 
free to all who wish first-class seed. We offer none except of our 
own growing. Address 



Lock-Box fj6y. 



M. H. DEYEERE, 

The Gilt-Edge Farm, Piqua, Ohio. 



KERD! READ! RfflD! 



T 



HE INFORMATION on this page is worth a $10 bill to every practical 
farmer. Read it through carefully. It won't take you over five min- 
utes. Pretty good pay, you say ($2 a minute), but it's a fact. Every 
farmer has read of, and many farmers throughout j the entire country 
have used with great success, the 

Breed U/eeder, 

The subject of level and shallow cultivation having been well written up dur- 
ing the last twelve months. In nearly every article you will read : "The 
Breed Weeder is conspicuously mentioned as the implement for this work." 

The Rural New-Yorker, October 3, 1891, in answer to a correspondent, 
says : " We think Breed's Weeder would prove as effective as any other one 
tool in killing small weeds. 

It is the only tool necessary for the complete cultivation of all farm crops 
during the first month of their growth. Read what noted farmers say re- 
garding it : 

" While-one row of potatoes was being hoed by hand, it being too near the edge to use 
the weeder, my son hoed, with the Weeder and one horse, and more thoroughly, thirty- 
six rows. I must have two next year." — T. B. Terry. 

" I regard Breed's Weeder as one of the most v.aluable implements a farmer can afford 
to employ." — J. J. Thomas, Inventor of the Smoothing- harrow. 

"We are using the Weeder to-day on a field of potatoes a foot high, and it does the 
best work it has done yet, for we have hit just the right condition of the soil.'." — Waldo 
F. Brown. 

" Your Weeder is about all that can be asked for as a weed-killer and surface-pulver- 
izer."— John Gould. 

" Its advantage is that it can comb out all the fine weeds from the hills of corn and 
potatoes better than the harrow, and later in the season, and so fully supersede the hoe, 
doing better work than the hoe can, and doing it ten times as fast. I predict that it will 
come into very wide general use among progressive farmers everywhere on decent soil." 
— W. I. Chamberlain, formerly of the Iowa Agricultural College. 

"I have only words of commendation for your Weeder." — Chas. W. Blew, Manager 
of the Northwestern Agriculturist. 

''I have just finished digging 2,600 bushels of potatoes from eight acres which were 
cultivated with the Weeder. The weeds from the entire piece you could carry off in your 
coat pocket. So much for the Weeder." — J. H. W arn , Potato-Grower , Richards, Ohio. 

Now, what do you think of it ? Don't you believe that you need one ? Is 
it not better to let your horse do your hoeing, if it can be done equally well 
and ten times as rapidly ? It is in the line of progressive farming. It is in 
the line of scientific farming. If the farmer of to-day is to keep up with the 
procession of pi*ogress, he must look carefully into the merits of all imple- 
ments which are intended and adapted to further his interests. In order to 
get more full information, send postal card with your address upon it. Don't 
delay. Write plainly to 

Tffl UniVOTL WEEDER COIfiM, 

North Weare, N. H. 

Or, THE GEO. L. SQUIER MFG. CO., General Agents, New York City. 



> 

CO 

2 

> 

r 
r 

S 

> 

2 
C 

■n 

> 
o 

H 
C 
3 



o 
o 



CD 
CD 



< 
CD 

CD 




Pallets Sent Free fig tie mapes Oompai 

/. POTATO-GROWING. 

American Agriculturist Great Prize Crop Contest. Potatoes, Corn, Wheat, 
Oats. How the two largest crops of Potatoes ever grown with fertilizers or 
manure (847 and 745 bushels per acre) were raised with the MAPES POTATO 
MANURE exclusively. Over 6, 100 bushels of Potatoes on a 20-acre field at Free- 
hold, New Jersey, Season 1890. This field " was formerly the poorest on the farm ; 
rarely, in former years, did this farm, with farm manure, bone and marl, and under 
favorable conditions, produce 20 bushels of wheat or 40 to 50 barrels of potatoes 
per acre." Since the commencement of the use of the MAPES MANURES, some 
15 years ago, the land has become so much improved that the crops for six years 
and over have averaged Nearly Double those of former years. Other farms 
brought up from poor to good condition, and with profit from thestart, by the MAPES 
SYSTEM of manuring on a five-year rotation : One ton per acre of the MAPES 
POTATO MANURE on potatoes; succeeding crops, wheat, grass (two years or 
more), corn with little or no additional fertilizer. Full details given. 

2. TOBACCO-GROWING. 

Suggestions for more successful competition against Sumatra wrapper leaf. 
Remarkable results with the MAPES TOBACCO MANURE in Massachusetts, 
Connecticut and Pennsylvania in producing Yield, Quality, Good Burn, High 
Finish, etc. 2,400 pounds Havana-leaf per acre on an average for five years in 
Connecticut by an old user of the MAPES MANURE. 

Colored photographs of Havana-leaf (crop 1891), grown exclusively with the 
MAPES TOBACCO MANURE, showing Fine Texture, Finish and High Value for 
wrappers, as compared with crops grown with stable manure, cotton-seed meal, 
etc. Highest market prices obtained. 

Front Hural New-Yorker, December 23, 1891. 

PRIME AMERICAN TOBACCO.— One of the handsomest and most unique 
circulars ever issued is the special Tobacco circular sent out by the Mapes Formula 
and Peruvian Guano Company, of this city. It shows three tobacco leaves, photo- 
graphed and printed in natural colors, so that each vein and tint is faithfullyrepro- 
duced. The difference in appearance between tobacco grown with the Mapes 
manures and farm manures with cotton-seed meal is thus seen at a glance. It is an 
original and striking device. Mr. Mapes is confident that American tobacco, equal 
in all respects to the imported article, can be grown on American soil. "Mapes 
and McKinley " seem a popular combination in the Connecticut valley. 

4. DESCRIPTIVE PAMPHLET. 

The MAPES MANURES and How to Use Them on Truck, Cabbage, Cauli- 
flower, Sugar-Beets, Tomatoes (for canning), Onions, Celery, Rhubarb, Top-dress- 
ing Grass or Lawns, Seedinar to Grass, Orchards, Tobacco, Small Fruits, Grapes 
find General Farm Crops. This is our General Pamphlet covering all crops 

This Descriptive Pamphlet is arranged for easy reference to any crop. It should 
he in the hands of every farmer, fruit-grower, trucker and special crop-grower. 
Apply for pamphlets to us or to any of our agents. 



The Mapes Formula and Peruvian Guano Co., 113 Liberty Street, New York. 

The Mapes Man I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS rs«y. 

Hill III ill III I II' 'ery section of the country. 



002 755 484 2 



